Re the meeting last Monday, congratulations on a well-run event, at which each
of us had the opportunity to lay out our areas of concern.

I thought it might be useful if I were to indicate what I understand the key
outcomes to have been, to confirm what I said, and to add a couple of further
comments arising from the later parts of the event.

Regards ... Roger

1. Next Steps

I understand that Adrian is to provide us with the following, in written form:

the timetable or "document with milestones"

detail about the planned use of biometrics, including technical specifications

measures of the problems that are being addressed

The next meeting was pencilled in for Thu 18 Mar (presumably in Canberra?).
Given that this is only 3-1/2 weeks away, and everyone has full diaries, early
warning would be very helpful.

2. The Key Points That I Made on APF's Behalf

(1) We have many specific concerns, some about process, some about product.
We have communicated some of those in our Preliminary Submission.

(2) A first important question is about the timetable. Apart from 26 Oct 04
(the US deadline), what other fixed dates are there?

This is a critical issue, because a process can only be described as being
'consultative' if there is a realistic possibility that the outcomes will directly
affect the proposal.

(3) We have serious concern about the use of the term "premier identity document",
and the several mentions of needing to facilitate its use by other organisations,
including Registrars of Births, Immigration, and banks.

(4) Another matter of serious concern is data exchange conducted in the context
of passports. A whole raft of exemptions and exceptions is built into the Privacy
Act, and most of the data exchanges are not subject to privacy protections at
all

I repeated the APF submission that it would be a good idea to remove all of
those exemptions and exceptions, bring these data exchanges under the Act, ensure
that there were appropriately balanced authorisations in place, subject them
to the purview of the Privacy Commissioner, and provide him with the resources
needed to monitor compliance.

(5) It was agreed that the discussion about biometrics needed to be conducted
immediately, because of the tight timeframe.

In order for the biometrics aspects of the proposal to be discussed in a meaningful
manner, the following information is needed

i a clear statement of what the proposition is, in sufficient detail to enable
analysis. Bob's presentation is a start, but a formal, much more detailed, and
written description is needed

ii an evaluation of the technology. Reference had been made to research already
undertaken. We need documentation of that research that we can review, because
this is not the kind of thing that can be chatted about in a meeting

iii evidence that the proposed application of the technology will work. This
is especially important given that there is plenty of evidence that it will
*not* work

iv disclosure of the outcomes of the impact assessment that must surely have
been performed before a Bill goes before Parliament

This information is a condition precedent to a meaningful consultative process
in relation to the biometric proposal.

3. Additional Comments

With the exception of the biometrics matter, we would think that most topics
could be addressed quite quickly, once detailed information about the proposals
is made available.

There is sometimes reluctance on the part of officials to make Drafting Instructions
available; but that is the level of detail needed, especially on such matters
as "likely to engage in [or] is charged with ... offences under the new Australian
Passports Act".

And may I once again assure you that the APF will be pleased to facilitate,
rather than oppose, proposals to ensure that effective mechanisms are in place
relating to matters involving demonstrable threat to human safety.

As regards measures of the scale of the problems that are being addressed,
we would appreciate the following information:

the number and proportion of Australian passport-holders who would be affected
by U.S. withdrawal of Australia from the visa-waiver program (I calculate
400,000 visitors p.a., less 20% re-visit in any one year plus 20% additional
re-visit over several years, hence between 200,000 and 300,000 individuals
p.a. of some 3 million? passport-holders, i.e. under 10% of passport-holders)

the source of the claim that international performance in comparing photos
against the person presenting at the counter is about 60%

your estimate of the performance of Australian border officials in comparing
photos against the person presenting at the counter